To think people who say women's football & tennis isn't as skilled as men's because the men (or even untrained boys) would beat them are missing the point?

[Carla786]

I've been down a rabbit hole about the 1971 Mexico Women's World Cup, and it's got me interested in women's football now. I've always been interested in tennis. Anyway, it's struck me, reading MN threads, that a lot of posts seem to miss the point about physical strength differences between men and women.
Men obviously are able to kick/hit balls etc with more power, because of higher testosterone. It's incoherent to claim this makes women players 'less good'. Sports are generally an area where it doesn't make sense to compare women to men : the women's game should be judged on its own terms.

I suppose it struck me particularly because probably most MN posters would agree TW shouldn't play in women's sports, because of that inherent physical advantage. So it's odd to see posts framing the fact men have higher T, or that untrained teen boys can beat top women players, as meaning that women's sport is less skilled intrinsically.

I agree, OP. Brute strength and stamina does not necessarily equate to greater 'skill', but it is why we have separate male/female categories.

Absolutely OP. That's why I find gymnastics such an interesting sport, because it flexed the women's sport towards things that female bodies are better at (balance, extension, flexibility) and kept the men's more focused on strength.

And women's sports should not be open to men. I find it extraordinary that anyone would argue otherwise.

I feel like women’s footballers actually have to have more technical skill precisely because they can’t just boot the ball from one end of the pitch to the other. DH agrees.

I speak to DH about this and he says it’s a much slower game so he gets bored (and he’s a massive footie fan).

Imagine if we'd built football pitches to a scale relative to the size and strength of women instead of men. It wouldn't be slow then.

Only sexist people would think otherwise.

Gosh, your husband has spoken. Must be like hearing the word of God, eh?!

I think lots of men overestimate their abilities.

I’d make a distinction between tennis and football here. Women’s tennis is just as skilful as men’s, if not more so- the fact that women are less strong means it’s a less a game about pure power.

Women’s football is a bit different, as it’s far less well funded and developed than the men’s game. This means that female players have received less training and for a shorter period. In terms of skill it reminds me more of the men’s game 40+ years ago- if you watch old matches you can see that it was played quite differently.. The current England men’s team would wipe the floor with the 1966 team, despite them having won the World Cup and our lot having won nothing. As time passes and more money goes int the women’s game, this difference will be lost.

I also think the women’s game would be better to watch if they played on slightly smaller pitches but that’s impractical.

Yes. If put to the test, a lot of (if not most) untrained men would
not be better than elite women. It’s just bragging.

Women’s football isn’t as good as Men’s football. That’s not to say it won’t get there, it will take time, and investment, and commitment .. not just in the UK, but globally. There hasn’t been the grass routes development pathways that men’s football has had, or the level of competition needed to keep the skill level increasing.

Tennis is a bit of a snooze-fest, on all levels.

I agree op. I heard Serena Williams in an interview saying that she wouldn’t play Andy Murray because she’d lose every set because they’re completely different games.

It's always been my opinion that the European Cup winning Lionesses could have wiped the floor with the England men's team of the time. Football is a game of skill not brute strength (Leeds Utd please note).

Didn't the great Billie Jean King win the tennis "battle of the sexes"?

YANBU.

Exactly - or more bluntly, because men have far higher testosterone so will win based on power.

Otoh it should be remembered that men don't beat women literally all the time. Otherwise Billie Jean King's challenge to Bobby Riggs would've been a failure.
I also find it irritating when people cite the Williams sisters losing against a German player in his 30s as proof that men would always beat them. They were teens , not at their peak yet : men probably would usually best them, but that match doesn't feel like quite a fair comparison.

Rings was 55, King 29 which probably helped. But it shows that simplistic statements that 'any man could beat any woman' are silly. Similarly, implying that teen boys beating women's teams shows how weak women are overlooks that teen boys are probably at peak fitness and strength, setting aside the T advantage men have anyway.

Thank you for that revelatory insight into what your DH thinks, I'll be sure to consider that carefully in my opinions on women's sport from now on.

Yes, I agree. I think a lot of people are probably conflating 'women are weak, football will always be boring' with the fact that the level of training etc that the England women's team have isn't level with the men's. This will improve though, as you say.

Yes, I wish we could do this so it could play to women's strengths.

many sports are based on physical prowess and skill. If you’ve got a man and a women equally skilled and both at their physical peak, it is likely that the man will be the better player sports like cricket / tennis or rugby because the physical side is important. All of these sports were if not invented, codified by male Victorians mind you, they weren’t exactly thinking about equality across the sexes!

I think thar misses the point though that it's pointless to judge women against men, because no woman, no matter how hard she trains, will have the power men's higher T brings. It's only coherent to judge women against other women.
To take pp's gym example, it wouldn't be coherent to judge men's rhythmic gymnastics (which some men do, eg. Japan) as less good because they have less lower body strength than women.

Men’s cycling is far more popular to watch than woman’s cycle (road) and yet woman’s cycling isn’t televised so how can it be popular? It’s apparently that men’s racing is more skilled and interesting therefore to watch

go to any junior club level cycling race and you have 12 year old boys winning races and getting a larger cash prize than the 12 year old girls. The reason “ apparently “ is due to more boys entering the race. We talking £30 for first place boy and £15 for first prize girl

how does a parent explain that to a brother and sister both winning their race

Well I spoke to my DH and he prefers the women's as he can always follow it and there is more skill, less brute force.

My DM prefers women's tennis for the same reason.

Personally I'd prefer no sport at all but maybe I've just been watching the men and getting bored.

They wouldn’t have. USA World Cup winning women’s team played the fc Dallas under 15 boys and got beat.
boys/men are just better at certain types of sport due to development, strength. Speed etc

The Lionesses are brilliant but basically playing a different sport to the men.

If you play then against each other the women will be wiped out everytime.

However training the best women's football team means training them to be the best at women's football, not training them to be as close to a male team as possible.